> > ---
> > This is a personal summary meant
>
> This is all very interesting, and of course should be taken as feedback for
> Selectors Level 4, but selector matching is completely out-of-scope for CSS
> Namespaces, which is the topic currently at hand.
>
Fair enough, although I note that this is the *second* note on this topic and you replied to the earlier one as well.
That said, the Namespaces problem and the Selectors problem are similar problems (from opposite sides). As a result, we can either:
1. Require normalization of the namespace prefix in the document (i.e. EUN). Since the rest of CSS doesn't have this requirement, it seems futile or problematic to impose it on the namespace prefix.
2. Require namespace prefix matching to use normalization. See selector text in previous email for reasons why the WG is likely to prefer this. I rather doubt the WG will come to a different conclusion for namespaces.
I do note that XML Namespaces (on which this is based) relies on RFC 3986 (i.e. URI rather than IRI). It might be a good idea to talk about IRIs and IRI equivalence in this document. While normalization is part of this discussion, the IRI problem goes beyond this.
Addison
Addison Phillips
Globalization Architect (Lab126)
Chair (W3C I18N WG)
Internationalization is not a feature.
It is an architecture.